Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1959

Vol. 51 No. 1

Government Wheat Policy—Motion.

Mr. Donegan

I move:—

That, in view of the wheat policy announced by the members of the present Government prior to the last General Election, Seanad Éireann deplores the manner in which wheat growers were treated by the Minister for Agriculture during and after the harvest of 1958.

I want to make it clear at the outset that this is a serious motion of censure upon the Minister for Agriculture, upon his Party and upon the Government, because of their behaviour during the wheat harvest of 1958 and since then.

In so doing, the first thing we must consider is the context. What was the context of the situation? In relation to wheat growing over the past few years, the context is briefly that in December, 1953, the then Fianna Fáil Government discovered there was a danger of a wheat surplus and they instructed their civil servants to produce for them a figure which would give the average consumption of Irish wheat per year. The figure given was 300,000 tons. That information was conveyed in the Dáil and there is no point in giving the actual date, line and column.

However, the harvest of 1954 was a very bad one. The Government had changed and was then an inter-Party Government who were elected in May, 1954, and from that day, the Opposition, the Fianna Fáil Party, were extremely unsympathetic with regard to the wheat difficulties facing the then Government. They were extremely unsympathetic with regard to the bad harvest of 1954 and with regard to the danger of a surplus. In 1955, there was a reduction in price and they were similarly unsympathetic and indeed, in 1955, 1956 and 1957, they were almost vindictively attached to the practice of attacking the Government on the basis of the reduction in the price of wheat which the Government unfortunately had to impose because of a threatened surplus.

So we come to the year 1956. A publication is issued monthly or quarterly from the Fianna Fáil head office named Gléas. In its January, 1956, issue, it published some observations. The first observation is:—

"A few days ago the Taoiseach received a deputation from the National Farmers' Association, which put the case for restoring the price of wheat to the 1954 level. From every point of view it is to be hoped that the Government will over-rule Mr. Dillon and accept the unanswerable case which has been made for a restoration of the Fianna Fáil price."

The Fianna Fáil price referred to was 82/6d. per barrel with a moisture content of 22 per cent. and a bushel weight of 63. In the same issue, we read:—

"It is now recognised by all that the slashing of the wheat price was a grave error of judgment by the Government. The results of this error will become still more serious, should there be a further fall this year in the acreage under wheat. Only an immediate Government decision to restore the 1954 price can save Irish wheat-growing from disaster."

Things began to take on a different flavour when a Fianna Fáil Government were elected and according as time wore on. In order to convey to members of the Seanad the sort of feeling there was in the country at the time, I shall quote from the leading article in the Irish Farmers' Journal— naturally, a non-political organ—of Saturday, 14th December, 1957:—

"A statement on wheat prices for 1958 is now long overdue. There have been some vague rumours that the Fianna Fáil Government is not as strongly behind the wheat-growing policy as it was in the past."

"We trust that there is no truth in this because our national economy demands the maximum production of wheat in Ireland."

Further down, we read:

"Any attempt to upset the present level of wheat prices can only lead to reduction in agricultural production. Due to heavy sales this year we will have less cattle to graze on the pastures. Sheep numbers are not sufficiently rapidly increasing to absorb increased grassland output."

That was after the election of 1957. Before the election of 1957, the time referred to in the motion, there were other pronouncements. One of the most pungent of these was by the Minister for Finance, which was made on the radio on 25th February, 1957, and reported in the Irish Times the following day. In his statement, the Minister described the 1954 cut in wheat as “cruel” and “unjust.” He stated that under a Fianna Fáil Government, a remunerative price would be fixed, for crops such as wheat.

When a person says that a price is "cruel and unjust" and that, under a Fianna Fáil Government a remunerative price would be fixed, one can only take such a statement as meaning that the speaker foreshadows a very large increase in price. Young men on farms in this country are very short of capital. They have not the money to buy cattle or to increase their other livestock, but they can get the money to buy a combine harvester. They can get the money to buy a new tractor simply by buying it on the hire purchase system.

These young men—young men, largely—bought farm machinery on the basis of the few pronouncements I have just read out for the House and many hundreds more, beginning with the Fianna Fáil county councillor in the very backward districts, right up to the Minister for Finance. In that situation, and to put this matter in its proper context, we must realise and accept that the Government had a very serious responsibility to the farmers who entered into the purchase of combine harvesters, ploughs and tractors on the hire purchase system and turned over to wheat-growing. These men believed they would get increases in prices and better terms than they had been getting. They believed that the terms they were getting were bad. They were led to believe that by the Fianna Fáil Party and therefore the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture had this serious obligation cast upon him.

Then we arrive at the harvest of 1958, a most disastrous and regrettable harvest comparable only with the harvest of 1954, but it was admittedly much worse because in 1954 alleviations were given by the then Minister for Agriculture. He removed the deductions for moisture content up to a very high level, costing the Exchequer well over £150,000 but these were alleviations that he gave. At the same time, he said, in effect, to the millers at that time: "You will mill a minimum amount of 50 per cent. Irish wheat". A miller said to me he did not believe we would ever get it and he was right because eventually the Minister made it 66-2/3 per cent.

The best way to deal with the 1958 harvest is to deal with the newspaper observations. Here is a heading carried by the Irish Independent at that time: “Hope of Saving Crops Fails. Heavy Rain Causes More Flooding”. I come from County Louth, a county in which a large volume of winter wheat became unfit for anything except to feed to animals. Flour millers are not philanthropists and are not a nationalised body. They are in this thing not for the colour of anybody's bright blue eyes but for profit—and so is everybody else in business. The finger of scorn cannot be pointed at them for that.

The flour millers, with no arrangement made and no Minister for Agriculture at that time, would not— because they were a private or a public concern, answerable to their shareholders or proprietors—buy wheat which was unfit for milling into flour. Then the farmers had the wheat on their hands and had to dispose of it for whatever they could get for it or try to save it themselves and have it dried to feed to animals, or just let it not there with a moisture content of 25 or 26 per cent. and be suitable for nothing. That situation obtained on 4th September for at least a week. On September 5th, there was another headline in the Irish Independent:

"Wheat Shrivelling in Many Areas. New Threat to Harvest Prospects." The report then stated:—

"Wheat is shrivelling in many parts of Ireland, to add to farmers' worries and bringing new grave threat to the harvest. The National Farmers' Association Grain Committee's request to the Minister for Agriculture to meet them for emergency discussions on the situation points to the alarm felt by grain growers. It is believed"

—this is a fact, as can be verified in the leading paper of the day—

"that the growers' leaders may meet the Minister next week."

At that time, I was trying to make contact with the Minister for Agriculture. He was not available to meet anybody. There continued to be this vast quantity of winter wheat—

Mr. Smith

Might I ask the Senator to inform me as to when this effort was made?

Mr. Donegan

On September 4th, 5th and 6th, and before it.

Mr. Smith

By whom?

Mr. Donegan

By me, personally.

Mr. Smith

I am not aware of it.

Mr. Donegan

I understood that the Minister, in those days, was not there.

Mr. Smith

I understand I was. I was not informed of the Senator's request to see me at any time.

Mr. Donegan

Thanks very much for the explanation. Apparently the Minister was not available, either, to the National Farmers' Association, as is shown by the newspaper report of that day.

On September 9th, winter wheat, particularly, had been harvested and was deteriorating. It was being sold for conversion into animal feed at as low as 43/- a barrel, from August 27th onward and on each successive day. On September 9th, the Minister met a deputation from the National Farmers' Association and on September 10th, lest the Minister should think that I am now being wise after the event, I felt I had to draw public attention to the situation and I did so by writing a letter which was published in the Irish Independent of that date. It stated:

"Over the last 14 days approximately 70 per cent. of the winter wheat in Louth has been harvested, and of this at least 90 per cent. has been rejected as unmillable. Certain millers will buy no winter wheat, and others are accepting some. Therefore there is no standard for unmillable wheat.

A few farmers can find a market for unmillable wheat, but most cannot.

The Minister was not available all last week. He met the N.F.A. yesterday, and I understand he is meeting the millers to-day. No matter what decisions are arrived at with either body, all the winter wheat shall, before these decisions could be implemented, have been sold as unmillable, or, in present weather conditions, become unmillable, on the farmers' lands. The loss can conservatively be estimated at a minimum figure of £30,000 to £40,000 in the smallest county in the Republic."

That proves conclusively that I am not being wise after the event and it is completely in line with what I have said to-day.

The days wore on and on September 12th, the announcement was made that the millers would accept all sound wheat, and I quote from the Irish Independent of that date:

"To provide a market for wheat affected by the weather, flour millers, in agreement with An Bord Gráin, will take up all sound wheat offered, says a Government Information Bureau statement issued on behalf of the Department of Agriculture."

It was inevitable, due to the major crisis that had developed, that something had to be done. It was inevitable that the millers had to accept this wheat, but, from August 27th until September 12th, many of them had not been accepting it. I do not blame them because no arrangements had been made with them. As I have said before, they are not philanthropists. They are ordinary businessmen and by that time much of this wheat had been sold at from 40/- per barrel upwards and was already walking around in the "tummies" of pigs in Monaghan and Cavan and other counties where pigs are fed in great numbers.

It was obvious that on September 12th the Minister had made a very bad arrangement in as much as no price floor, no price level for given qualities, had been fixed, and between 12th September and 18th of September, savage screening deductions were made by the millers. The Minister had to make a further announcement on 18th September that the minimum price payable for wheat of 26 per cent. moisture or under would be 63/6d. per barrel, less 5/9d. On this question of screening deductions, I want to say that there was no question whatever of screening deductions up to 12th September, except in the case of wheat contaminated with chaff, wheat seeds, dirt and other extraneous matter. It was perfectly correct that there should be deductions in respect of such wheat which farmers might try to get paid for at the higher price.

It was again obvious on 12th September that the millers had no financial arrangements on which to work. They did not know how much of this wheat they were to be asked to handle, and they decided the best thing they could do was to lower the price to the absolute minimum they felt possible. They did so and reduced the price in cases to 47/-, 48/- and 49/- per barrel. Finally, on 18th September, a new arrangement was made whereby a minimum price was enforced and the headline in the Irish Independent for that day was: “New Price Fixed for Sound Wheat”. The report stated:—

"A new price of 63/6d. per barrel is to be paid for ‘sound' wheat containing not more than 26 per cent. moisture, it was announced last night. While it represents a drop of 10/- per barrel, the arrangement will, it is said, relieve growers of some of the financial loss they are likely to incur and the guarantee by the Government of a market for all such wheat, the bulk of which will only be suitable for animal feeding, will go a long way towards cushioning the losses."

As I have said, the Minister made a very bad arrangement on 12th September and had to return, with his tail between his legs, on September 18th.

Lest the Minister should seek to say that the absolute minimum was always paid for Grade 2 wheat, I should like to quote from the Irish Flour Miller's News Letter for February/March, 1959, page 2, which states under a heading “Minimum Always Paid”:—

"Deductions for screenings were then applied, but only to the Grade 2 wheat, and only so far as they brought the price down to the agreed minimum."

The agreed minimum then was 57/9d. which was exactly 24/3d. less than was expected by the unfortunate young men who had bought combine harvestors and tractors. They had expected that the price of wheat would return to the Fianna Fáil price of 83/6d. for 63lbs. bushel wheat, but instead of that they got only 57/9d. Admittedly, they have since got two or three shillings more as an ex gratia payment. I do not see how the Minister can call it such since he took 5/9d. away from them in the first instance but, to use the legal jargon, it was an ex gratia payment.

I charge the Minister with not making a concrete arrangement with the millers. He did not leave them in a position in which they could go ahead and buy wheat at a fixed price and at a figure that would be equitable. He threw his responsibilities over on the farmers and in a national crisis, he fed them with their own tail. To put it exactly, I shall refer to the Irish Independent of Monday, September 15th, and the Press reports of statements by Mr. P.D. Odlum, of the Executive Committee of the Irish Flour Millers' Association, who said:

"The millers had been accused of delay in the emergency. The millers knew that the winter wheat was poor and the spring wheat had not yet come in. Now they had an opportunity of examining the spring wheat they found it just as bad. The millers had then taken immediate action."

We know of cases of young men with very little capital who sold their 20 or 30 barrels of wheat to various people because they had no drying accommodation and, perhaps, needed to sell this wheat to pay for farmers' produce. These men sold this wheat to compound millers. There is no hope of their being repaid as it went to compound millers. These compound millers mill it into pig food. Few men could be expected to pay the price of £30 odd per ton when they had expected to issue it at £23 to £24. There is no hope of repayment for the unfortunate grower because of the Minister's delay and because of his negligence—I would say, his gross negligence—these unfortunate men are left in that position.

I am well aware that where this wheat, prior to 12th September, was sold to millers who besides being compounders were also flour millers they will in fact, by a paper transaction, buy the wheat again for themselves and put it into the Grain Board pool and repay the farmers. The only loss will be to the pool. The unfortunate farmer who sold the wheat to a compounder, or to a neighbour who wanted it for pig feeding, or who kept it for feeding cattle will get no compensation. There is no compensation and the Minister has been grossly negligent. There is no use abusing the millers; they did only what any business man would have done in the same situation.

The Minister dealt with this Grain Board pool in a way, which, in my opinion, is grossly unfair. He discovered that the screening deductions have reduced, on paper at least—as we know in most cases—the cost of dried Irish wheat to a level which was lower than the cost of the imported substitute and lower than the estimated figures which it would cost the miller to put it into the grist. The estimated figure was 86/- a barrel. He has now concluded an arrangement with the millers whereby the price should be taken as 81/- a barrel and they will pay a levy of £2 on every barrel they take in substitution for the Irish wheat.

The Minister has also placed two prices on the Irish wheat. If you want to import bran, pollard, barley, millet or maize for feeding, you must buy two tons of Irish wheat at £24 a ton before you will be given a licence to import one ton of any commodity I have mentioned. That constitutes a levy of £4 per ton on the imported commodity. It has been represented that in order to get the wheat used, it was necessary to do this. In my view, that is very silly. Could the Minister not have said that in respect of every two tons of Irish wheat anybody bought, he would give a licence for one ton of the imported grain, but that he would make no price differential? He could have said that he would not charge the man who wanted to buy feed for his pigs an extra £4 a ton, purely in order that the Government would not have a loss as high as it was.

The deliberate and studied silence of the Minister from December to the present month spoke volumes. He should have told the farmers whether the millers wanted wheat in the year to come; whether or not screening deductions would be operated again in a normal year. He should have said how much wheat was wanted and what sort of wheat was wanted. At least previous Ministers for Agriculture told us what was expected of us. The Minister did not want more than 300,000 tons of wheat because every ton over that amount loses votes for him and therefore he kept quiet in the hope that the farmers, who had been lacerated by the harvest, would now grow less wheat and relieve him of any embarrassment. I think he has succeeded in that.

The price for oats and barley will not be very attractive next harvest. The Minister has not lived up to his responsibilities and he has not come to the help of the farmers and has not told them what is expected of them. I think that is the first duty of a Minister for Agriculture, particularly in a sphere of agriculture where disaster has struck.

In conclusion, I should like to say that the whole situation points to great negligence. Disregard perhaps would be a milder word, but it could be a harder one. The complete disregard of the Minister for the dilemma of the wheat farmers last harvest and the complete disregard of the Minister for them when they were wondering what to do during the last two months has been almost criminal. These unfortunate men were led by the Party, of which the Minister is a member, to gear their agricultural production to wheat. The Government have the responsibility of telling them to grow more wheat every week of the year for the last ten years. The Government do not accept that responsibility. The Government leave them with their combine harvesters, with their ploughs, with their tractors and with their implements and do not tell them what they may expect next harvest. This disregard will reap its reward and it will not be very pleasant for the Minister.

The levy on the imported wheat which was put into the Grain Board pool and not given to relieve the farmers was unjust. The levy put on imported offal—simply by putting £2 a ton more on all the Irish wheat that you would require for feeding before you received a licence for one ton of the imported grain—is also, in my view, most unjust and unfair and should be abolished.

I put it to the Minister that he should consider what are the necessities for wheat growing in the future. In my view, they are, in the first instance, a realisation that the millers are businessmen and that they are not going to buy wheat just because it suits somebody. They are going to buy wheat for milling at a price which they regard will pay them and nobody can make them do anything else. If you do make them you will find that they are unable to pay after some years and therefore such a desire will defeat its object in the long run. If this realisation is accepted by all, and by the Minister, you may be able to make a better bargain with them. You may be able to see to it that there is certainty and hope of profit, both for the farmer and the miller. In the last harvest, the Minister has seen to it that no one has anything to hope for in the years to come.

The second prerequisite is some price relation between wheat and wages and the cost of living. I believe quite sincerely that when the subsidies were removed and when the 10/- increase was invented, there was a price relationship between that price for the barrel of wheat, on the one hand, and the wages being paid and the cost of living in the country, on the other. That should be preserved. The Minister sought to preserve it in no way in the last harvest. In future, we should try to preserve it. We should give increases in the price of wheat based on increases in the cost of living and on the level of wages.

There should be constant investigation and statement upon the findings. Constant investigation there is; statement by the Minister there has not been at any time. I feel there should be constant investigation and that the Minister should use his office to see that the results of these investigations are got across to the wheat farmer, the miller and everyone involved. For instance, winter wheat is a type of wheat which, in my opinion, is useful for inclusion in wheatmeal milling and to some extent for inclusion in flour milling; yet most farmers are very chary about the prospects of selling winter wheat at the ordinary milling wheat prices next harvest. The Minister has not said a word since last September about that, which might have led them to sow or not to sow, to hope or to be in despair.

The last remedy of all is to cease the political pricing of wheat, to cease this business of putting 5/- on a barrel of wheat before an election and then leaving the wheat at the same price as before or reducing it, afterwards. There should be an end to what the Minister for Finance did—making a speech which clearly implied he would increase the price of wheat after the election. These are important questions and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about them.

I believe this motion of censure was necessary, to place on the records of this House exactly what was done from 27th August or 1st September of last year until the present time. It is absolutely necessary that those facts should be recorded, as the Minister should not be allowed to get away with it. He may have all the excuses in the world. If he has, I am ready and willing to listen to them and I am sure the House is also. I have tried not to abuse my position; I have tried not to be condemnatory; but I feel very strongly in the matter. I hope I have not hurt the Minister's feelings; if I have, he will know it is not intended.

Mr. John L. O'Sullivan

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Hogan

I rise merely to say that I have listened with some attention to the various statements made by Senator Donegan. Although he has said a lot, in my opinion, what he said did not contain much common sense. The main point he omitted from all his discussion was that the year just passed, 1958, was one of the most disastrous years in the memory of any man living to-day, so far as the harvest is concerned. In spite of that, the Senator accused the Minister for Agriculture, using strong language, of gross neglect by depriving the farmers, according to him, of something they were entitled to and of not doing something, through neglect, that he should have done to alter the situation in their favour. I do not agree with one single word he said.

The Minister for Agriculture, in my opinion, handled the situation as resourcefully as any man in that position could in very difficult circumstances. He did so in consultation, during the whole period, with the National Farmers' Association and what he did had their approval. They claim to represent the views of the farmers as much as I do or Senator Donegan does. A greater price for wheat was agreed between the Minister and the N.F.A., but the weather cut across that arrangement and it could not be made effective later on. It is most unfair for any Senator to accuse the Minister here of having neglected his duty. I fail to see why it should be insinuated that he did anything which was not helpful to the farmers in that disastrous year. He deserves credit for what he did, for having taken all the wheat produced. Even though 80 per cent. or more was unmillable, none of it was left on the producer's hands. Although the price was not as good and the wheat did not realise as much as people expected, it was all taken and a fair price—the value of it, to put it that way—was given. That was done through the Minister's efforts, in a most disastrous year; and for that action the farmers owe a lot to our Minister for Agriculture.

Apart from the little political change which was added on to the discussion, there was nothing else in the statements made here this evening by Senator Donegan.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

In seconding this motion, I mean to confine myself entirely to the effects on the farming community in the present year. I do not mean to go back to the last disastrous harvest. Every farmer will have it implanted in his memory for a long time to come. I hope that no Minister and no Government will have to face a similar situation for a considerable time.

When we put down this motion, our principal purpose was to deal with the future. We hoped it would be discussed in time for the present sowing season, but, unfortunately, that did not happen. We have been waiting for some pronouncement from the Department as to the policy of the Government on the growing of wheat in this season, but we have not heard of any policy. As far as I can see, there is nothing but a lack of policy, complete silence on the part of the Government and the Department on the growing of wheat.

What a change that is from past years, when we saw all the countryside decorated with advertisements, placards and brightly coloured signs: "Grow More Wheat". Not alone were these lacking, but there was nothing from the Government or the Department. The farming community had built themselves up to the agricultural policy preached by previous Governments. At considerable expense to themselves, they had purchased tractors, ploughs, harrows, combine drillers, combine harvesters and so on. As a matter of fact, the people I am looking at across the House were producers themselves and, for once, they will have to take the consequences just like ourselves. Co-operative societies put up grain drying plants in every corner of the country.

What has happened this year? The people waited for a lead which they did not get. The acreage of wheat is considerably reduced, to such an extent that we will have to import a considerable quantity of wheat even to add to the supply that has been bought for the grist. I hope we will have a good harvest this year. Even if we have, we will find that because of the acreage sown under wheat, we shall be far short of the target of 300,000 tons. The people who put their money into those agricultural appliances I have mentioned will have to turn to some other means of paying for them, for unfortunately many of them are not paid for. The farming community has been led up the garden path. "Grow more wheat", "Grow more beet" were the catchcries of the past. "Grow more wheat" is a thing of the past, which we have not heard this year, and "Grow more beet," I am sorry to say, is facing a similar position.

When the ordinary farmer is making up his mind what to do for the year, he parcels out his land and says: "I will grow so much wheat, so much barley, so much oats and potatoes, and keep so many livestock." In justice, he is entitled to know whether he can market the crops and animals he produces, and to get a lead from the Department or the Government. I can tell the Minister and the Government that next year the acreage of tillage will be considerably reduced. The amount of grass seed sown this year in with the corn crops is very considerable, as the Minister can find out from the seed merchants. It is very plain that the people are disgusted by this lack of policy and of foresight.

At present we have a price of £22 a ton for unmillable wheat, while we exported early in the past year to our neighbours in Britain and the Six Counties first class millable wheat for £18 and £19 a ton. Now we are importing that same wheat and charging our own farmers £22 and £24 a ton for unmillable wheat. That cannot be denied. I have the figures here of the amounts exported to the Six Counties and to Britain in September, October, November and December, 1958 and as late as January, 1959. We have given a present of so many thousand tons to the farmers in Britain and the Six Counties and charged our own farmers £22 a ton wheat of worse quality.

Unfortunately, our motion cannot do any good this year, but we want to get from the Minister and the Government some idea of their future policy. Are they behind the growing of wheat or are they not? Do they mean to stand by the promise they made to the farmers as regards the growing of wheat? Every member of the farming community at every meeting throughout the country in the past two or three years listened to propaganda from the Party opposite saying: "If we go back to power, we will raise the price of wheat." No honest man can deny that that was said up and down the country. I wonder what will happen in the rural constituencies during the next election. I wonder what answer they will have to make to the people who paid their money for combine harvesters, tractors, machinery and implements. Those unfortunate people still have them only partly paid for.

I would ask the Minister and the Government even at this late stage to tell the agricultural community where exactly they stand. As I said at the beginning, I am sorry that it is too late to do anything about this year's sowing season, but we are looking to the future and we do not want anything like this to happen again. We want to get some lead and the farmers want to be told where they stand. I hope that by putting down this motion, we shall get an answer from the Minister and the Government.

Mr. O'Leary

I have had 25 years' experience in flour milling. I know that the farmers have been badly let down because they were told that they would get their price back. That was the line taken in the canvassing and speeches made in my constituency, which is a good wheat growing area. My grievance, however, is this, that although the price of wheat has been reduced, the consumer to-day is paying 1/2½d. for his loaf, where under the inter-Party Government, he was paying 9d. Naturally, when the price went down to the farmer, the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have stepped in and said: "You will have to reduce the loaf". The loaf is still the same price and the people are wondering why the Government took no action. I know that the Government have very little say in regard to wheat buying or anything else. It is controlled by the monopoly, by Ranks. They are the people who dictate policy to the Irish Government. They say: "We do not want your wheat. It has a bad moisture content", and still the flour cannot be milled without dampness. That is the strange thing about it. After the making of the silos and the drying, the water is running out of the wheat in every flour mill in the country.

There is no doubt that Fianna Fáil won the election on the farmers' votes, on the pretence that the farmers would get back the 12/6 taken from them, but the Government failed them. They did not stick to their promises to the farmers, or to their promises to the consumers to reduce the cost of living. Bread, one of the necessaries of life, and butter are dearer here than they are in Birmingham, Newry or Belfast. I bought these commodities myself and I saw them in shop windows in those cities. Irish butter can be bought in Birmingham at 1/10 per lb. That is wrong.

If the reduction were passed on to the consumers, I do not believe this motion would have been put down. The movers were right to put it down to fight their case, but people are suffering as a result of the high price of bread. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, should consider that. We all know an increase in the price of wheat and bread will be passed on to the consumer and they should step in and keep the price down. We know that at the moment wheat is being ground down into compound food for pigs and we know wheat is exported across the Border and to England.

The Wexford Committee of Agriculture sent representatives to see the Minister with regard to the export of wheat and the importation of foreign wheat. There is no need to import foreign wheat but we are told that the bakers' flour must have a mixture and so Manitoba wheat is imported. That is a mistake. Just because we had one harvest which gave an abundance of wheat, people got excited and said there were no stores, no room for it in the country, and they exported it at half price.

That policy was all wrong. In 1958 and 1957, bread was 9d. and it is now 1/2½d. Is that not a shame? No action has been taken in the Budget to do anything about it and after a bad harvest, the price of bread to the farmers is still the same and they have a grievance. Why did the Minister not say: "The price of wheat has gone down to the producer; we will reduce it to the consumer"? If they had done so, I would say nothing, but they have not and the consuming public are paying the piper.

Mr. Smith

We must have been very just.

Mr. O'Leary

If they were just, there would be no motion.

Mr. Carter

The more one hears on this motion from speakers opposite, the more confused one gets with the cry of dear wheat and cheap bread. I should like to know from speakers opposite where is Santa Claus? We all know one does not shoot Santa Claus, but I should like Senators Donegan and O'Sullivan to produce him in this House and put him on show.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They talked of banshees yesterday.

Mr. Carter

The Minister for Agriculture has been condemned for his alleged inaction during the period of the harvest of 1958, but when Senator Donegan was quoting—I do not know, but I presume he is a member of the Irish Flour Millers' Association——

Mr. Donegan

I wish I were.

Dr. O'Donovan

If he were, he could subscribe to Fianna Fáil funds.

Mr. Smith

He does not know with which foot they dig.

Mr. Carter

When Senator Donegan quoted from this Newsletter dealing with the 1958 wheat crop, he should at least have quoted the whole of that little article, because since the flour millers issued this Newsletter, it has been a source of information to those who are not connected with the industry, as growers of grain, or millers, but it does give information to the consumer, who is the third party, and who is by no means the least of those connected with the wheat cycle—he consumes the end product—and as Senator O'Leary rightly points out, the loaf of bread as it stands is dear enough at the moment.

Senator Donegan claims that the grower is not being compensated and I want to know from Senators O'Leary and Donegan, who will pay the money? Is it the consumer?

Mr. Donegan

In a national crisis, the Exchequer.

Mr. Carter

The Exchequer did not do too badly at all and that is admitted by all sections of the community. The word "Exchequer" is bandied about here rather vaguely—the "Exchequer" and the "Central Fund". I could give the Senator a definition of both, but in the last analysis, it is the consumer and the taxpayer who count and the Senator is a consumer in his own right and is also a taxpayer. I should like to ask him whether he would like to pay more as a consumer or as a taxpayer. If the Senator says "Yes", I shall concede him some little point in his argument and if he says "No", I want to know where Santa Claus comes in.

Dr. O'Donovan

Let us cast the millers in the role of Santa Claus.

Mr. Carter

No; the mover of the motion did not condemn the millers; he did not lean too heavily on them.

Mr. Smith

He dare not do so.

Mr. O'Donovan

Perhaps I shall say a few words myself.

Mr. Donegan

I dare do anything.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Burke)

Senator Carter should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Carter

I should like to quote briefly from the Newsletter which was quoted by the Senator. Under the sub-heading “Screenings—what they are, why and how they are taken out” and in an aside, if you like, it gives an idea of the position that had to be met during the 1958 harvest. We are all prepared to concede that the 1958 harvest was one of the worst in history. Any fairminded person will concede that the measures taken to deal with it were largely emergency measures because it was sprung upon us. The Minister did not create the conditions under which we laboured. He is not a prophet, nor, so far as I know, has he hand, act or part in providing us with our climatic conditions. He is only a mere man like the rest of us. He carries the portfolio of Minister for Agriculture and in so far as he was able, in my submission, he did his best under most trying circumstances to meet the position.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.